Lost iPhone story getting ugly
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPhone ringtones
Next: Non-Flash flashing ads
From: Jochem Huhmann on 28 Apr 2010 18:03 real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes: > The story is that the iPhone was lost and found, and the fee paid was a > finder's fee. A finder's fee is something the rightful owner pays for getting back something he lost. Gizmodo *bought* something from someone who did not own it. Just calling the paid price a different name doesn't make it a different thing. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Rowland McDonnell on 28 Apr 2010 19:05 Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes: > > > The story is that the iPhone was lost and found, and the fee paid was a > > finder's fee. > > A finder's fee is something the rightful owner pays for getting back > something he lost. A finder's fee is something paid (not /necessarily/ by the rightful owner) for the return of lost property - no reason why a well-wisher who wanted to help return the property to the rightful owner shouldn't helpfully pay such a fee themselves, acting as an intermediary. >Gizmodo *bought* something from someone who did not > own it. But they did not - not that I've read. > Just calling the paid price a different name doesn't make it a > different thing. There's no way it could have been a purchase, since Gizmondo knew that the person in possession of the gadget was not its owner. <shrug> The way they've presented it - from what I've read - is that they paid a finder's fee. If they'd claimed to have bought it (that is, paying the money and then asserting their ownership of what was not legally theirs) - well, that does turn the matter into something where you'd be thinking about charging someone with theft or handling stolen goods or /something/ like that, anyway. But I've read nothing about Gizmondo claiming to OWN the iPhone in question, so I don't see that your allegation about them claiming to have bought it can be correct. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jochem Huhmann on 28 Apr 2010 19:22 real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes: > Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > >> real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes: >> >> > The story is that the iPhone was lost and found, and the fee paid was a >> > finder's fee. >> >> A finder's fee is something the rightful owner pays for getting back >> something he lost. > > A finder's fee is something paid (not /necessarily/ by the rightful > owner) for the return of lost property - no reason why a well-wisher who > wanted to help return the property to the rightful owner shouldn't > helpfully pay such a fee themselves, acting as an intermediary. So you think Gizmodo is now asking Apple to give them back the $5000 they gave the "finder" while acting as an intermediary for Apple? Anyway, this is exactly the kind of juggling with facts that gets you into trouble as soon as you have to convince anyone else than yourself. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Rowland McDonnell on 28 Apr 2010 20:22 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > <http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers> > > > > Police raid Jason Chen's house, take computers and drives > > Good. I hope he is charged, tried and convicted of receiving stolen > property. He sounds like a genuine sleazeball. Where is the /evidence/ that the property was stolen in the first place? Rowland. (not denying the sleazeball bit, but that's no reason to convict someone of a crime they did not commit) -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 28 Apr 2010 20:28
Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > >> Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > >> ><http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers> > >> > > >> > Police raid Jason Chen's house, take computers and drives apparently > >> > using an invalid search warrant. > >> > > >> > >> As I undertand it they're claiming it's invalid due to the time (9.45pm). > >> However, it was valid between 7pm and 10pm, so it appears fine. > > > > No, they're claiming the seizure of his gear was invalid because he's a > > journalist. > > All that means is that he's under no legal obligation to name the guy that > sold it to him. [snip] That is not the claim made in his defence. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/gizmodo_iphone4_raid/> Apple, the iPhone 4G, the cops and the click-tart Is going to jail part of the Gawker media plan? "Gaby Darbyshire, COO and chief legal officer of Gizmodo parent Gawker, claiming that both state and federal law state that a search warrant may not validly be issued to confiscate the property of a journalist." "Darbyshire says it's "abundantly clear" that the search warrant was invalid, that a subpoena should have been issued instead, and that Chen should get all his gear back pronto." More on the subject: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/28/gizmodo_crimewatch/> Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |